ERIC ED467727: Intellectual Initiatives at a Research University: Origins, Evolutions, and Challenges.

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 467 727

HE 035 151

AUTHOR

TITLE

PUB DATE
NOTE

PUB TYPE
EDRS PRICE
DESCRIPTORS

Frost, Susan H.; Jean, Paul M.; Teodorescu, Daniel; Brown,
Amy B.

Intellectual Initiatives at a Research University: Origins,
Evolutions, and Challenges.

2001 - 11-00

36p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Association for the Study of Higher Education (Richmond, VA,
November 15-18, 2001).

Reports - Research (143) — Speeches/Meeting Papers (150)
EDRS Price MF01/PC02 Plus Postage.

Case Studies; Decision Making; Higher Education;
^Instructional Leadership; ^Intellectual Disciplines;
^Interdisciplinary Approach; Program Development; Program
Implementation; ^Research Universities

ABSTRACT

This qualitative case study explored the origins, evolutions,
and challenges of 12 cross-disciplinary intellectual initiatives at 1
research university. Researchers conducted open-ended interviews with leaders
of the 12 initiatives and used program literature to support the data
gathered from the interviews. The study found that key factors such as the
passionate commitments of scholarly leaders, access to timely and multiple
resources, and the presence of collegial networks help these programs
successfully navigate across traditional academic boundaries. Tensions such
as the conflict between traditional department structures and collegial
styles of decision-making lead to some challenges related to coordination and
communication, time, resources, reward structures, and leadership transition.
Despite these tensions, these programs find ways to flourish, bringing in
resources, and creating spaces for a critical mass of intellectual exchange.
An appendix describes the programs studied. (Contains 22 references.)

(Author/ SLD )

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.

HE 035 151

<N

r-~

r-~

Q

w

Intellectual Initiatives at a Research University:
Origins, Evolutions, and Challenges

Susan H. Frost, Paul M. Jean, Daniel Teodorescu, Amy B. Brown

November 2001

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced as
received from the person or organization
originating it.

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
BEEN GRANTED BY

S. Frost

Minor changes have been made to improve
reproduction quality

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

Points of view or opinions stated in this
document do not necessarily represent
official OERI position or policy.

1

2

92^1 S7

Intellectual Initiatives at a Research University: Origins, Evolutions, and Challenges

Susan H. Frost, Paul M. Jean, Daniel Teodorescu, and Amy B. Brown
Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia

Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education,

Richmond, VA, November, 2001

Abstract. This qualitative case study explores the origins, evolutions, and challenges of twelve cross-
disciplinary intellectual initiatives at one research university. The study found that key factors such as
the passionate commitments of scholarly leaders, access to timely and multiple resources, and the
presence of collegial networks help these programssuccessfully navigate across traditional academic
boundaries. Tensions such as the conflict between traditional departmental structures and collegial styles
of decision-making lead to some challenges related to coordination and communication, time, resources,
reward structures, and leadership transition. Despite these tensions, these programs find ways to
flourish, bringing in resources and creating spaces for a critical mass of intellectual exchange.

Cross-disciplinary activity that spans traditional boundaries is redefining academic work
for many scholars at research universities (Frost and Gillespie, 1998; Geiger, 1990; Newell and
Klein, 1996; Slaughter and Leslie, 1997; Spom, 1999). Just as industry has used flexible, cross-
disciplinary teams to spark innovation, many academics seek new kinds of intellectual alliances
to address complex social and scientific problems. Many of these pressing problems require the
combined efforts of scholars trained in different disciplines. Although cross-disciplinary
academic units have become increasingly important in higher education in the United States,
particularly at research universities, we know little about how they originate and function.

Before university leaders can provide the particular forms of support these programs require, they
need to understand how successful programs form and meet the challenges they face.

This paper presents the results of an analysis of twelve cross-disciplinary intellectual
initiatives at Emory, a research university located in the southeastern United States. Because of
the decentralized structure of this university, researchers attempted to discover the unique aspects

3

i

and challenges experienced by cross-disciplinary programs that range across eight of its schools.
The research is part of a systematic exploration at Emory about the characteristics of successful
programs and the conditions that support them. When universities explore the attributes and the
requirements of such pockets of innovation, they can tailor policies and resources to support
similar programs (Hirschhom and May, 2000). From approximately forty programs that we
identified as major cross-school initiatives at the university in 2000, we selected twelve for in-
depth qualitative analysis. The twelve programs reflect the diversity of cross-school programs at
Emory in topic, size, and scope, ranging from large centers funded by agencies like the National
Science Foundation and the Pew Charitable Trusts to faculty reading groups with modest
financial needs that Emory meets.

Cross-disciplinary Intellectual Initiatives and Academic Organization

Recent research suggests that interdisciplinary approaches to teaching and research no
longer cling to the edges of university life but increasingly flourish in the academic core (Geiger,
1990; Newell and Klein, 1996; Slaughter and Leslie, 1997; Spom, 1999). Moreover, new
academic structures for accomplishing such work have become “primary sites of intellectual
work” for many faculty as well as students (Newell and Klein 1996: 153-163). Accordingly,
neither university departments nor disciplines can claim exclusive rights to the intellectual life of
faculty.

Although institutions of higher education are sometimes thought to be insulated from
external forces, several scholars have noted that the rise of cross-disciplinary centers reflects, in
part, how colleges and universities adapt to environmental influences. Slaughter and Leslie
(1997) acknowledge the destabilizing pressure of globalization during the latter half of the

0

4

2

twentieth century for the rise of interdisciplinary initiatives. Similarly, Spom (1999) views
changing patterns, of university work as adaptations necessary to survive economic, political, and
social threats to the traditional mission and structure of universities. For example, organized
research units (ORUs), which developed as partnerships between the United States government
and many American universities during and after World War n, have played a “major role in
expanding research and raising institutional reputations” (Geiger 1990: 1 1). The applied research
functions of interdisciplinary organized research units complement the research mission of
traditional departments while also providing a buffer for the academic core against the pressures
of societal demands for applied research solutions (Geiger, 1990).

As interdisciplinary scholarly programs become more central, particularly for the research
university, they challenge administrative structures and policies heavily skewed in favor of
traditional departments and disciplines (Frost and Gillespie, 1998; Geiger, 1990; Newell and
Klein, 1996; Slaughter and Leslie, 1997; Spom, 1999). While the external focus of these
programs often attracts outside funding and prestige, which helps universities adapt to external
societal and economic pressures, the breadth of their missions and activities can conflict with
relatively narrow and specialized departmental and disciplinary boundaries. These new
interdisciplinary research and teaching structures are complex systems, sidestepping the
traditional organizational maps of the university. Indeed, these structures may even link with one
another in “a shifting matrix, replete with feedback loops and unpredictable synergistic
relationships” (Newell and Klein 1996: 165). Though interdisciplinary initiatives complement
departments by doing the work that departments are not designed to do, they also may compete
with departments for intellectual and resource capital. As Newell and Klein (1996: 161) point

5

3

out, initiatives can “strain the budgetary, staffing, and promotion/tenure procedures embedded
within the traditional departmental structure.”

A recent case study of two interdisciplinary initiatives at Harvard reveals how traditional
administrative structures and intellectual innovation across disciplines often clash (Bohen and
Stiles, 1998). Harvard found that administrative structures designed to support the work of
departments and schools often “impede individual and collective progress in the long run” of
cross-disciplinary work. For example, the interdisciplinary activities of program leaders and
participants often occur on top of their departmental responsibilities. Furthermore, reward
structures that favor individual scholarly achievement frequently overlook faculty engagement in
teaching and research not directly related to departmental and disciplinary purpose. Departments
may desire to maintain boundaries that have served them well, especially in an environment of
fiscal retrenchment (Bohen and Stiles, 1998: 40-41).

The bureaucratic and collegial management styles that form the loosely coupled systems
found in universities provide both opportunities and challenges for interdisciplinary programs
(Baldridge et al„ 1991; Weick, 1991). While universities generally adhere to traditional models
of rational decision-making and standard operating procedures integrated by formal hierarchies,
the highly professional nature of faculty work relies upon collegial styles of governance and
interaction. Successful innovation in teaching and research is, in part, based on a community of
peers anchored in professional authority and shared decision-making. However, the difficulties
of anticipating and managing conflict with bureaucratic structures and boundaries frequently
beset consensus models of decision-making. Cross-disciplinary collaboration, with its special
emphasis on consensual interaction, often strains the traditional bureaucratic hierarchy of
departments and disciplines. This tension between the collegial interaction needed for new

6

4

knowledge creation across disciplines and the powerful constraints of departmental
organizational boundaries may be more prevalent at the research university (Damrosch, 1995;
Geiger, 1993; Ruscio, 1987). Because research universities serve a dual mission of supporting
sponsored research and liberal teaching, they are particularly susceptible to tensions that occur
between producing specialized knowledge and fostering faculty collaboration across fields. For

t

research universities, the proliferation of disciplinary specialties in which star scholars often
reign suggests a need to develop new mechanisms for intellectual exchange aimed at integrating
knowledge across fields (Bellah, 1996; Boyer, 1990).

Despite the numerous challenges facing interdisciplinary collaboration, many scholars
believe that cross-school intellectual initiatives create important benefits. Besides increasing the
institution’s prestige and attracting external funding (Geiger, 1990; Slaughter and Leslie, 1997),
these programs provide the intellectual inspiration that both motivates faculty whose interests
extend beyond their immediate fields and creates new knowledge through links across disciplines
(Benowitz, 1995; Bohen and Stiles, 1998; Hollingsworth, 1996; Rice, 1996). Intellectual
interaction across disciplinary and departmental boundaries improves the ability of scholars to
address wide-ranging societal problems. Particularly for the natural sciences, frequent and
intense interaction between individuals with diverse ideas and viewpoints seems to increase the
potential for innovative breakthroughs. As Bohen and Stiles (1998) suggest, developing
appropriate ways to understand and evaluate these innovative programs represents a major
challenge for researchers and university leaders.

Those who aspire to nurture such innovative programs might look to the work of
scholars of management and organizational development. For example, some recommend that
leaders who compete on the edge of innovation recognize the unpredictable, uncontrolled,

inefficient, continuous, and diverse nature of their work. Rather than looking outside the
organization for models to emulate, some leaders study the details of successes and failures
within the organization. Then they work to mold and transfer strategies that work in that
environment to other local venues. This practice uses the organization’s particular characteristics
and nuances, rather than attempting to accommodate the ways it differs from the environmental
home in which an outside model might thrive (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1998; Hirschhom and
May, 2000).

Research Questions

To better understand the needs of intellectual initiatives that cross two or more schools,
Emory researchers designed a study that focused on the development of cross-school initiatives.
Based on prior research and previous contextual knowledge about the university, we paid special
attention to similarities between programs and the challenges they face in terms of administrative
structure and culture. Because Emory is composed of eight schools (including an arts and
science college; several health sciences professional schools such as medicine, public health, and
nursing; and the professional schools of law, theology and business), creating activities that span
these separate entities sometimes appears daunting. For example, program planning, budgeting,
and even semester calendars often lack mechanisms for cross-school coordination. To gain an
initial understanding of these programs, we focused on revealing common factors that may be
instrumental in learning how these programs originate and evolve. We proposed the following
research questions:

• What factors help shape the origins of cross-school intellectual initiatives?

• What factors influence their evolution?

3

6

What challenges do they encounter?

What benefits do they offer for both faculty and the university?

Methods and Data Analysis

We employed a qualitative case study approach in order to learn how a set of uniquely
structured programs functions in the context of one university (Merriam, 1998; Yin, 1994). After
compiling an inventory of over forty such programs, we selected for in-depth study twelve
programs that reflected the diversity of such initiatives across the various schools and colleges
within the university. To be included in the survey and more in-depth study, programs had to
cross at least two schools of the university and feature a significant research component for
faculty. For example, we did not include programs whose mission focused primarily on
providing joint degrees for students. The twelve ranged from large centers receiving funding
from outside agencies to faculty reading groups with modest internal funding. The programs
included: African American Studies; Center for Behavioral Neuroscience; Center for Disease
Ecology; Center for Health, Culture, & Society; East Asian Studies; Halle Institute for Global
Relations; Law and Religion Program; Psychoanalytic Studies Program; Religion Department
Seminar; Religion and Science Faculty Group; Russian Studies; and Violence Studies (see
appendix A for a description of the programs).

We conducted open-ended, semi -structured interviews with leaders of the twelve
initiatives and used program literature to supplement the data gathered from the interviews. The
interviews were taped and transcribed. An advisory group of faculty from across the university
provided feedback on study design, interview protocol construction, and data analysis. In the
winter of 2000, an advisory committee of faculty known for their involvement in cross-school

9

7

programs provided feedback in designing a protocol to be used in interviews with leaders of
cross-school centers. The protocols included forty questions about the origins, missions,
organizational structures, support, barriers, and future plans of cross-school initiatives.

Several limitations pertain to the study. The first concerns limits related to generalizing
from the findings of qualitative research (Merriam, 1998; Patton, 1990). Because we conducted
a qualitative analysis of a limited subset of diverse programs at the university as a preliminary
investigation, caution should be taken when applying our findings both across the university and
to other research universities. This study was undertaken with limited resources as a first step to
better understand the nature of these programs at our institution; it is by no means fully indicative
of the depth and breadth of cross-school initiatives at our institution or nationally. Information
based on how these types of programs function and persist in the context of Emory’s culture and
structure forms a part of a larger research agenda.

Other limitations concern both the nature of the data sources and the sample. Because we
relied primarily upon narratives from interviews with program leaders, we may have failed to
capture potentially divergent views of faculty and students who also participated in these
programs. However, due to limited resources, we determined that this approach would provide
valuable insight into the background of these programs from the perspective of their leaders or
founding members. Unfortunately, we were unable to locate faculty members representing
initiatives that failed. Although we canvassed the faculty for such narratives, people seemed
reluctant to discuss negative experiences. Thus, our sample of programs, though diverse in terms
of scope and content, includes only leaders of programs that have achieved, at minimum, a
reasonable level of success and stability. Furthermore, because of the rapid growth at Emory
over the last two decades, many of the initiatives in this study are relatively new (especially those

10

8

related to research). Eight of the twelve programs have existed five or fewer years on campus.
The other four offered experiences from over six to thirty years, giving us some idea of patterns
of longer evolution.

Findings

Below we present the findings based on interviews with the leaders of the cross-school
intellectual initiatives and supplemental data describing the missions and activities of these
programs. We subdivide the findings according to origins, evolution, challenges, and benefits.

Origins

The data indicate that several important factors shape the genesis of cross-school
initiatives at Emory. Important factors include the vision, characteristics, and collegial
connections of the founding scholar; structures of collegiality; outward focused mission and
connection to resources outside of Emory; and timely administrative support.

Vision, characteristics, and collegial connections of founding scholars. Most of the
twelve programs we studied originated through the scholarly vision of a single faculty member or
a few individuals collaborating on an idea to which they were powerfully committed. For
example, the founder of the Psychoanalytic Studies Program, with a background in both
anthropology and psychoanalysis, was uniquely qualified to bring together clinical and academic
perspectives on psychoanalysis. Faculty from the Psychoanalytic Institute in the Medical School
join scholars from law, history, anthropology, and literature to discuss the history, theory, and
application of psychoanalytic thought. The leader remarked that, even though the program was
small, it had attracted a high degree of national interest and prestige. In another example, a
biologist’s vision of merging principles of ecology and evolutionary biology with the study of

11

9

infectious disease led to the creation of the Center for Disease Ecology. Almost thirty years ago,
a sociologist and a humanities faculty member grasped the potential for developing an African-
American Studies program that continues to this day.

According to the program leaders we interviewed, the key personality traits needed to
support the origin and early development of cross-school initiatives include collegiality and its
related characteristics: dedication, patience, consistency, imagination, tact, organization, and
political skills. For example, the director of the Program of African American Studies believed
that “the directorship works better when there is a sense that is beyond obligation or duty,” which
he called “a passionate commitment to the topic.” The director of the Psychoanalytic Studies
Program cited the need for political and organizational skills that accompany a dedication to the
program as an intellectual project, declaring that “commitment is the key.” In a similar vein, the
director for Russian and Eastern Studies noted that a certain “public spiritedness” along with a
“consistency of vision” provide “critical” ingredients for launching cross-school initiatives. For
the leader of the Center for Injury Control, interdisciplinary programs require both leaders and
faculty who can think and act “outside the box . . . reaching across disciplines and looking for
connections.” According to the Violence Studies Program director, good leadership requires, in
addition to open-mindedness, diplomatic skills and salesmanship to “sell the program” not only
to potential participants but also to the “administration and the larger community.”

Beyond providing the initial vision for cross-school initiatives, these leaders enjoyed
strong collegial networks that provided important intellectual and financial resources. Often
founders of initiatives drew upon relationships established outside the contexts of their home
discipline — in other interdisciplinary forums at or beyond Emory, or through work on university-
wide committees. For example, the well-established intellectual ties of the founder of the

12

10

Psychoanalytic Studies Program both across the university and with the American Psychoanalytic
Association attracted a blend of internal seed money and scholarly recognition both inside and
outside to help launch and sustain the program. When key administrators noticed the passionate
interest in psychoanalysis as a scholarly topic recurring in discussion groups encouraged by the
founder, seed money soon followed.

Structures of collegiality. The existence of structures of collegial or collaborative
relationships across the university also seemed to spawn the emergence of cross-school
initiatives. For example, instances of team-teaching encouraged faculty to reach out to a
colleague beyond their disciplines and strengthen relationships across departments and schools.

A relationship that developed among three faculty members in religion, biology, and physics in
support of a team-taught course in religion and science grew into the Science and Religion
Faculty Group. In some cases, joint-appointments provided a platform to support new collegial
relationships across disciplines. For example, one faculty member with a joint appointment in
history and public health noted that his official status in two different schools was indispensable
to the subsequent development of the Center for Health, Culture, and Society. Two other
program leaders pointed out that their joint appointments serve as an easily recognizable badge of
expertise in multiple disciplines to deans and other administrators who can provide support to
new programs.

Outward focused mission and connection to resources outside of Emory. Almost all of
these programs tended to look beyond narrowly defined and isolated traditional research fields.
We found that predominantly outward-looking and problem-based research missions of cross-
school initiatives are crucial for drawing the initial interest and support for these programs.

These social missions tapped into the idea of knowledge in service to society, inspiring

13

11

collaboration across the traditional divisions of the university as well as addressing fundamental
shifts in American culture. For example, the Law and Religion program merged with the Human
Rights Watch to develop the Religion and Human Rights Project. The Center for Health,

Culture, and Society gathered scholars, community leaders, and public health officials for a
symposium on community-based approaches to presenting disease. The Center for Behavioral
Neuroscience, among other things, focuses on the meaning of the recently mapped human
genome. The Program of African American Studies, which emerged out of the civil rights
movement in America, continues to explore the significance of race in American culture.
Meanwhile, the Science and Religion Faculty Group helps its members grapple with issues such
as physician-assisted suicide and genetic screening.

Because of the outward focus of their missions, collegial connections involving
collaboration across disciplines and across institutions of higher learning in Atlanta played an
important role in spawning cross-school initiatives. Three-fourths of the initiatives at Emory
were closely tied to some of the resources available in the Atlanta metropolitan area, which
include the Centers for Disease Control, the American Cancer Society, the Carter Center for
Human Rights, and higher education institutions like the Georgia Institute of Technology,
Georgia State University, and Morehouse University Medical School. For example, the Center
for Behavioral Neuroscience drew on Emory researchers and students together with colleagues
from several local universities to win their grant for investigating the relationship between
neurology and social behavior. A faculty leader we interviewed described finding Emory and the
surrounding area the right combination of resources in biology and public health necessary for
applying ecological and evolutionary principles to understanding the emergence of infectious
disease. In another example, the proximity of the Psychoanalytic Institute to the Medical School,

14

12

the Law School, and the Institute of Liberal Arts provided sufficient intellectual capital as well as
shared meeting places to help spawn the Psychoanalytic Studies Program.

Health science-based programs, however, were not alone in finding resources in Emory’s
urban context. Several cross-school programs that draw their strength from humanities and
social science faculty also find support from beyond the gates of the university. For example, the
Law and Religion Program regularly finds area clergy, lay people, and practicing attorneys at
their conferences on topics such as law and human rights, or law and family. In partnership with
local agencies that address the social problems so common to urban areas like metropolitan
Atlanta, Law and Religion also offers internship programs for students, as do the Violence
Studies Program and the Program of African American Studies.

Timely administrative support. Finally, the interviews reveal that early enthusiasm and
support from central administrators often facilitated the establishment of cross-school programs.
Early support or “seed money” from the university played a vital role in developing many of the
cross-school initiatives studied. Six of the twelve programs relied upon this kind of seed money.
For example, early financial commitment from the university and from a state governmental
agency played a key role in winning a 20 million dollar grant from the National Science
Foundation to launch the Center for Behavioral Neuroscience. Although the Law and Religion
Program later received funding from a number of schools and administrative units as well as
external grants, several thousand dollars of seed money from the provost’s office helped establish
the program in 1982. Even though the Halle Institute of Global Learning received an external
gift early on, additional money from the provost’s office aided the program’s set up. In addition,
many leaders described the early support and enthusiasm of deans, the provost, department

0

ERIC

15

13

chairs, or leaders of other interdisciplinary programs as critical in building the initial momentum
around their programs.

Evolution

Although a majority of programs studied were five years old or less, some patterns
emerged about their development. The most important factors in shaping their evolution
involved access to diverse resources and funding, and adaptability of governing structures and
mission (including the continued importance of collegial networks tied to dynamic leadership).

Access to diverse resources and funding. Our study finds that initiatives depend upon
access to diverse resources and funding to ensure their sustainability. Leaders of these programs
talked about a mix of outside-in and inside-out approaches to funding for their mission and
activities. For some programs, the offices of the provost and school deans play a continuing role
in providing some financial support. Six programs continued to receive support beyond the seed
money on some level from central or school-based administrative resources. Almost all
initiatives in this study have received some funding from external agencies, while four of the six
programs receiving administrative support also rely upon external grants. Many of the programs
we studied rely upon substantial grants from agencies such as the National Science Foundation,
the National Institutes of Health, the Pew Charitable Trust, and the Ford, Mellon, and
Rockefeller Foundations. Leaders that relied on several sources did not seem to feel overly
obligated or tied to any one source as they charted the course of their initiatives. As the Center
for Injury Control director noted, “since we are not dependent on anybody’s funding, we kind of
go wherever we want.” He added that the environment made him feel free to “go over and make
a deal with Arts and Sciences or put together a project in the Medical School.”

16

14

Adaptability of governance structures and mission. The adaptability of leadership and
governance structures also influenced the development of these programs. Our findings suggest
that leadership and governance, like funding, tend to expand into an interconnected, collegial
web of networks across the university as initiatives evolve over time. These programs often
relied upon a small core administrative structure while accomplishing much of the work through
collegial networks of faculty across departments and schools. Ten of the twelve programs relied
on a staff of less than five people, while only one had a large staff (sixteen or more). Beyond the
core staff, these programs drew on a core group of faculty to accomplish their mission: while five
programs had a large affiliated faculty of over twenty professors, the other seven had between six
and twenty. While these programs varied in their approaches to governance, some of the more
mature initiatives developed committee-based and collegial decision-making structures that
permit substantial flexibility for program management.

Over time, flexible governance structures permitted changes in focus and activities in line
with shifting faculty interests and funding opportunities. According to the Center for Injury
Control director, the center’s structural and funding flexibility permits a certain “freedom to
range across fields, issues, and disciplines, and put teams of people together to tackle problems
or challenges.” As the director of the African American Studies explained, decentralized
leadership “builds faculty buy-in and commitment to the program.” In some cases, the
requirements of external funding agencies influenced the formation of executive or advisory
boards that led initiatives away from the initial guidance of a single faculty member with a strong
vision for the program. Older initiatives (those in existence for 15 or more years before the study
began) tended to evolve from one or two central leaders into a broader leadership structure that
relies on a core group of faculty to chart a strategic course. Even as such programs incorporated

a wider range of voices for strategic decision-making, they often left daily decisions to one or
two core leaders. By expanding into a more inclusive leadership structure, these programs
recognized the importance of providing faculty with a stake in governance. For example, the
Law and Religion Program has a 35-member university committee and a seven-member
executive board that enables the program to address its future. Most of the initiatives that were
led by an advisory board or committee make decisions through a majority vote, although some
strive for consensus on all key decisions.

Just as the organizational structures changed over time in some cases, so did the missions
or the activities. Interestingly, none of the leaders envisioned a natural endpoint for their
initiative. Instead they described a cycle of one project dying down as another rose in its place.
This adaptability allowed initiatives to serve the interests of diverse constituencies within the
faculty, as well as adapt to changes in scholarly fields, resources, and available technologies.

One faculty seminar, inspired by several professors’ interest in team-teaching in science and
religion seminars, grew to serve the research interests of a broader group. Several others began
with a focus on faculty research but added graduate students over time. A few programs
developed undergraduate majors or minors, as well as graduate-degree programs. One program
that began as an advanced exploration of topics across history and public health for faculty later
developed fellowship opportunities for graduate students and plans eventually to offer more
courses for a greater variety of students.

Because the design of this study necessarily excludes initiatives that have no research
mission, it is interesting to note that all of the initiatives feature some kind of educational
component. Though only one-third of the programs studied offer a degree or minor
concentration for undergraduates or graduate students, all offer undergraduate courses, open

ERIC

18

16

lectures, internships, or training opportunities for graduate students. Often, this educational
component provides key resources for initiatives as well. In some cases, a commitment to
undergraduate or graduate education helped secure external or internal funding. In other cases,
graduate students contributed intellectual energy, enthusiasm, and work. Two leaders
specifically identified the labor of graduate students — both intellectual and logistical — as an
important resource for their program.

Challenges

Interviews with leaders revealed that the programs faced similar challenges: coordination
and time constraints, resource access and faculty rewards, leadership transition, and
communication across departments and initiatives.

Coordination and time constraints. First and foremost, many of the faculty leaders
frequently mentioned time constraints experienced by both leaders and participants. Many
faculty leaders in this study described time pressures related to juggling multiple responsibilities
as the most serious obstacle to faculty participation in cross-school initiatives. Many directors
indicated that interdisciplinary work is done “on top of’ departmental responsibilities. As the
director of the Center for Injury Control observed, running the program is often a “one man
show” in performing administrative duties and scholarly activities across departments and
programs in the School of Public Health and the Medical School. While leaders recognize the
value of “sweat equity” in proving the worth of a new approach to knowledge, they also
acknowledge the difficulties of wearing “multiple hats” while being “spread too thin” across
research, teaching, and service duties within their home departments.

17

Resource access and rewards. Conflicts with departments over access to faculty labor
and the lack of acknowledgement about the value of interdisciplinary work in tenure and
promotion presents another set of obstacles. For some of the leaders we interviewed, conflicts
with departments over duties of teaching, research, and service represented their greatest obstacle
in accomplishing the work. For example, faculty who participate in interdisciplinary centers
often face a lack of recognition for tenure or promotion for the scholarly activities that take place
outside of their discipline.

In general, most of the leaders seemed mindful of developing ways to enhance official
recognition of each participant’s work. For example, the African American Studies program
provides detailed letters that describe the quality and volume of work done for the initiative by
faculty members, both to the department for the faculty member’s fourth-year review and to the
faculty council when tenure is being considered. Such practices, according to the director, “have
played a valuable role in securing tenure for young faculty,” who sometimes fear that
interdisciplinary scholarship may be undervalued.

Closely related to this issue are conflicts of faculty time and labor between initiatives and
departmental homes. Leaders of Violence Studies, the Halle Institute for Global Learning, and
the Psychoanalytic Studies Program followed a practical way to avoid potential conflict with
departments over “borrowing” faculty who may teach interdisciplinary courses. They rotated
demands among several departments across participating faculty or incorporated work already
being done in the home disciplines of faculty participants. Thus, no single department’s
resources become overtaxed in the support of an interdisciplinary initiative. Leaders also
employed the strategy of cross-listing courses in order to ensure departments that the work of
their faculty members gains proper recognition and credit for teaching.

er|c

20

18

The different reward structures that exist in different sectors of the university can also
present barriers to cross-school collaboration. Scientists often raise part of their own salaries
through research grants from agencies like the NIH or NSF, whereas professors in the arts and
sciences generally have their research underwritten by more fixed salaries from the university.
Because of this traditional way of structuring rewards in the academy, several faculty leaders
noted greater difficulty for faculty in medicine and public health to make time to participate. As
one director with a joint appointment in public health and the arts and sciences said: “It’s much
easier for someone in the arts and sciences to participate on a regular basis than it is for someone
in the health sciences.”

Leadership transition. Although some leaders of cross-school initiatives indicated a
concern for stalled progress, most faculty leaders foresaw a continued evolution in topics,
activities, and funding sources. No leaders envisioned a natural endpoint to their programs,
although several individuals expressed concerns over successful transitions in leadership. In
some cases, initiatives tend to be identified with one faculty member alone. Several faculty
leaders, especially those associated with centers that lacked a more formal or committee-based
structure, voiced similar concerns that called for more ways to institutionalize the collegial
connections and knowledge that had fueled their programs. The director of the Halle Institute for
Global Learning, for example, indicated some difficulty in preparing for new leadership: “What
do we want the Halle Institute to do and be? A big decision like that needs the input of a lot of
people, but you need a process by which you reach a decision, and we have not done that.”

Communication. Another obstacle to successful programs is poor communication across
departments and initiatives. Leaders of programs offering courses or degrees noted
communication obstacles most often because they face difficulties coordinating schedules and

financial aid across the schools. Several leaders, for instance, described the lack of cooperation
they received from administrative offices, like the registrar. These problems can also affect
students. As the director of the joint degree program for the Law and Religion Program noted:
“it really takes an enterprising student and a tenacious administrator to make sure these
bureaucratic challenges don’t discourage students from doing interdisciplinary work.”

Several program leaders called for better communication and linking of activities across
interdisciplinary programs to strengthen research, teaching, and faculty recruitment. In addition
to sharing information about overcoming practical or logistical struggles, communicating across
initiatives allows faculty members to build on shared research interests. In one case, the
Violence Studies Program emerged out of discussions between a faculty member with a passion
for understanding violence in society and the director of the Center for Injury Control. Although
faculty leaders are wary of adding bureaucracy or administrative hurdles, several suggested
establishing a dean or special committee of interdisciplinary research that might act as clearing
house for these sorts of initiatives and provide' more “institutional memory.”

Benefits

The faculty leaders we interviewed observed a number of benefits from the development
of cross-school initiatives for both participating faculty and the university. Despite the
substantial and diverse challenges from involvement in cross-school initiatives, program leaders
described a sense of intrinsic reward. Some leaders described a connection to an “intellectual
refuge,” where one can “refresh oneself intellectually” or experience “great intellectual
stimulation.” According to the co-director of the Religion and Science Group, his “whole
academic life has been radically enhanced by the opportunity to talk with physicists and medical

22

20

doctors.” Some leaders described that many faculty participants report experiencing an enhanced
sense of collegiality, reinvigorated approaches to teaching, opportunities to develop new
pedagogical strategies, and exposure to different intellectual perspectives.

In addition to benefiting faculty, some leaders described benefits for the university, such
as creating programs of distinction, enhancing prestige, and supporting collegiality and
intellectual community. Many faculty leaders described the intellectual enrichment that flows
from working with colleagues from other fields “over a sustained period of time” and the
subsequent sense of collegiality and friendship across campus. Some believed that creating
sanctuaries for a “critical mass of idea exchange” spawns collaborative research, and, in turn,
brings external funding to the university. Others noted that cross-school initiatives provide
avenues to academic distinction that build on the strengths of faculty. Leaders of some of the
smaller programs, in particular, noted the national and international prestige that their programs
garnered the university based on what they considered to be a small investment.

Discussion

Although the twelve cross-school intellectual initiatives we studied display a remarkable
diversity of size, structure, and activities, some common factors seem to influence their growth
and development. Moreover, common factors relating to leadership, governance, collegiality,
resources, and funding often reinforce each other and build sufficient critical mass to support and
sustain new programs. We also found evidence for several tensions supported by the literature
that persist across these programs. One tension exists between the outward focus of the missions
and activities of these programs, and the reliance upon the leadership of local scholars.

Ironically, the ability of cross-disciplinary programs to accomplish external alliances and attract

23

21

external research support depends on the internal dynamics necessary for their formation and
evolution (Geiger, 1990; Slaughter and Leslie, 1997; Spom, 1999). A second tension involves
conflict that sometimes arises between the collegial communication necessary to support
interdisciplinary research and teaching, and the traditional, binding administrative structures
associated with departments and schools (Baldridge et al., 1991; Bohen and Stiles, 1998; Newell
and Klein, 1996; Weick, 1991).

Key factors that shaped the origins of cross-school initiatives involve the passionate
vision, unique characteristics, and powerful collegial connections of founding scholars. Many
programs that cut across disciplines emerged out of the scholarly vision of a single faculty
member or a few individuals collaborating on an idea to which they were deeply committed.
Furthermore, the ability to attract sufficient resources to get a program off the ground often
seems related to the interconnection between the drive of individual scholars and the existence of
both personal and university-wide collegial networks. When scholars with a “passionate
commitment to the topic” draw upon well-established intellectual ties across the university and
beyond, they often succeed in attracting sufficient seed money and early administrative support to
found and develop an interdisciplinary program. Also, the proximity of medical and other types
of research organizations and universities provided nearby sources of funding and intellectual
capital to support the outward-looking and problem-based missions of these initiatives. Our
findings confirm the observation by Newell and Klein (1996) that interdisciplinary programs tend
to link organizational units in an ever-shifting matrix of synergistic relationships.

Several synergistic or mutually interacting factors also seem to influence how cross-
school initiatives at Emory are sustained. As these initiatives develop, the availability of
multiple resources and funds, along with non-hierarchical and collegial structures of program

governance, permitted programs sufficient flexibility to forge unique sets of ties and funding
sources. These conditions also allowed programs to maintain considerable freedom to adapt their
missions and activities as needed. Thanks to multiple funding sources that ensure the survival of
programs, faculty leaders were also relieved of feeling an especially heavy sense of obligation to
any one source. In addition, the absence of formal governance structures helped permit program
leaders to network across various units of the university, which enhanced their ability to uncover
multiple sources of direct and indirect support. The flexibility and adaptability that characterize
, these programs also allow the balance between research and teaching to adapt as needed over the
program’s life span. Often, educational program components complement the research mission,
helping to draw in resources such as graduate students who provide additional energy and
support.

Even as these various complimentary factors provided the necessary ingredients for the
origins and continued sustainability of the cross-school initiatives, the data further revealed a
number of challenges related to several tensions inherent in higher education, particularly at the
level of the research university. The first tension exists between the outward focus of these
programs that attracts external links and resources and the reliance on the internal leadership
needed for their formation and evolution (Geiger, 1990; Slaughter and Leslie, 1997; Spom,

1999). These programs have a strong external focus in their research goals, supporting Geiger’s
contention that interdisciplinary programs such as organized research units play a “mediating”
role, linking the “knowledge demands of society and the knowledge-producing capabilities” of
universities. All twelve programs articulated research missions that address issues of critical
interest to our society, from the causes and prevention of violence to analyzing the recently
mapped human genome.

25

23

However, as interdisciplinary programs and centers extend outward beyond the
organizational confines of their host universities by drawing outside support and funding, they
rely upon the passionate vision and capabilities of scholars who create and sustain them through
collegial networks. While the outreach inherent in the mission of cross-school intellectual
initiatives at Emory forges advantageous ties for building intellectual, financial, and
administrative capital, these scholarly leaders often have to navigate across minefields of internal
structures of institutional management based on department and school-based organizational
boundaries.

At the same time, this tendency to be externally oriented and influenced by environments
beyond the university may also threaten the internal management of these programs. For
example, the intellectual work of the university may become beholden to the interests of their
non-university sponsors. Such a relationship may undermine the traditionally recognized
contract between society and universities that grants “faculty and universities a measure.of
autonomy in return for the disinterested knowledge that serves the public welfare” (Slaughter and
Leslie, 1997: 222). Undue influence from funding agencies regarding the intellectual content of
scholarship has the potential to erode “the validity of knowledge” over its potential uses (Geiger,
1990: 8). Although the leaders we interviewed did not specifically address this problem, we
observed that the requirements of external sponsors influence the organizational structure of
centers when a funding agency requires a hierarchy of leadership or a board of directors.
However, our finding about the significance of a faculty leader’s vision and passionate
commitment to an idea for sparking these initiatives would seem to partially mitigate the undue
influence of external sponsors, at least as an impetus to a program’s beginning.

ERIC

26

24

A second tension emerges from the internal dynamics within the university. Conflict
sometimes arises between the free-flowing, collegial communication necessary to support
interdisciplinary work and the traditional, administrative structures connected to departments and
schools (Baldridge et al„ 1991; Bohen and Stiles, 1998; Newell and Klein, 1996; Weick, 1991).
We identified four major challenges associated with these conflicts: coordination and time
constraints, conflicts over resource access and rewards, leadership transition, and
communication. First, because leaders of these programs often act as a “one man show,” time
pressures abound, as they must accomplish related work in addition to meeting the
responsibilities to their home departments. The nature of this work, often as a “night job,’ as
Bohen and Stiles (1998) call it, is dysfunctional; our findings underscore their warning that this
pattern impedes effective cross disciplinary work. As a result, our findings indicate the
importance of working with faculty leaders involved in coordinating cross-school programs to
help articulate needs, set workable boundaries, and balance their diverse roles and
responsibilities.

Second, conflict with departments over resources for and recognition of interdisciplinary
research and teaching creates difficulties over “borrowing” labor from home departments of
faculty participants. Faculty leaders repeatedly voiced concerns about the evaluation of their
cross-school work in tenure and promotion decisions. As Bohen and Stiles (1998) note, the fact
that the reward structure of the research university is geared toward individual endeavors rather
than collaborative efforts presents a serious obstacle for cross-disciplinary scholarship.

Third, although these programs often rely upon dynamic founders to create and sustain
them, our data reveal that this reliance seemed to pose some challenges for future leadership
transitions. Because most of these programs rely on individual scholarly leaders, the programs

can experience some loss of momentum and direction when new leaders take over. As one
leader we interviewed suggested, one way to solve this difficulty is to create an advisory
committee that will continue the work of the leader without much disruption.

Finally, difficult communication across departments, interdisciplinary programs, and
other administrative units often requires a “tenacious administrator” to secure faculty and student
participation. Despite the fact that all faculty leaders described collegial relationships as integral
to the origins and evolution of their initiatives, they also expressed difficulty in communicating
across the maze of departments, schools, and interdisciplinary structures that increasingly
characterize research universities. As scholars have noted, the collegial style of faculty work
frequently clashes with the rational and bureaucratic hierarchies of decision-making across
administrative units (Baldridge, et al., 1991; Weick, 1991). Because interdisciplinary work often
occurs without departmental anchors, its supporting collegial culture often lacks administrative
heft. Although the nature of universities as loosely coupled units provides space for the creation
of new and variously organized programs, by the same token, it also presents an obstacle to their
communication with other units.

Despite the challenges of creating and maintaining cross-school initiatives, the leaders we
interviewed cited a number of benefits that accrue for both participants and the university
(Geiger, 1990; Slaughter and Leslie, 1997). Due to wide-ranging intellectual interests, faculty
who do not often fit within the traditional boundaries of departments and disciplines value the
“intellectual refuge” often provided by these programs. For the university, we have noted some
potential benefits beyond drawing external funding for research, such as the enhanced prestige
and a “critical mass of idea exchange” that raises the profile of intellectual issues crossing
disciplinary boundaries.

26

Recommendations

The nature of cross-disciplinary programs — fragile because they lack the hiring lines and
the traditional security of departments, yet resilient because they are highly adaptable — cautions
against making blanket recommendations for guiding their development across a variety of
institutional settings. Care should be taken so that new structures created to help solve problems
of coordination and conflict between academic departments, schools, and cross-disciplinary
initiatives do not inhibit the collegial and loosely coupled management styles necessary to
support such initiatives. We suggest some additional lessons for faculty and administrative
leaders from these case studies below.

1 . Find better ways to communicate across administrative units, departments, schools, and
cross-disciplinary initiatives in order to lessen the administrative learning curve for
leaders of new programs, reduce potential redundancies, help cross-disciplinary programs
handle leadership changes, and aid in the recruitment of faculty with research interests
that may span disciplines and schools. For example, supporting informal faculty
discussion seminars that draw scholars from various departments and interdisciplinary
programs creates opportunities for faculty to learn about each other’s research and
identify potential areas for program development. Creating advisory committees that
support faculty leaders helps to sustain the momentum of these programs as they
experience changes in leadership.

2. Create a mechanism such as a faculty committee or a clearinghouse that disseminates
information about different research interests across the university and locates available
resources to support those interests. For example, Emory is creating an up-to-date

29

27

database of all cross-school programs that faculty members can access on the web to learn
of colleagues’ interests.

3. Develop ways for faculty and administrative leaders to work together to help faculty
reduce time pressures from wearing “two hats” and balance diverse roles across the
boundaries of departments and cross-disciplinary programs. For example, universities
could adjust the reward structures related to tenure and promotion when evaluating
scholarly work that extends beyond the boundaries of faculty member’s home
departments and disciplines.

4. Provide multiple sources of “seed” money and facility support to emerging programs.

For example, matching available departmental resources and facilities funding with
modest funding from central administrative sources can provide the impetus for faculty
drawn together by common scholarly interests to coalesce and seek external funding.

Conclusions and Implications for Future Research
Although cross-school intellectual initiatives at Emory take on a wide variety of missions,
activities, and administrative and funding strategies, we found evidence for some important
factors that help shape their origins and evolutions. We also discovered challenges arising from
tensions between the outward focus of these programs and the benefits they bring to the
university, and the need to free up the passion and creativity of scholarly leaders for the cross-
disciplinary interaction that helps achieve those benefits. In addition, we found tensions between
the departmental and school structures that sometimes constrain these programs and the collegial
networks that provide the inspiration and creative results. While these tensions often produce

O

ERIC

30

28

challenging organizational roadblocks, a remarkable variety of creative solutions for navigating
them have emerged.

Despite these challenges, however, our study of a dozen diverse programs confirms a
significant level of faculty interest in research that crosses fields. We expect that demand for
cross-school programs will rise because faculty members continue to seek out collaboration
across disciplines to address pertinent scholarly problems. In addition, universities will find they
can significantly shape their institutional profiles by developing and nurturing interdisciplinary
initiatives.

Our findings strongly suggest that interdisciplinary initiatives can evolve more
successfully when intellectual goals shape administrative structures. We also recommend that
colleges and universities provide the ingredients that can spawn and nurture such cross-school
initiatives. These ingredients include maintaining loosely structured and flexible systems of
governance, enhancing recognition and reward for interdisciplinary work, reducing the burdens
of time and frustration involved in engaging in scholarship outside of departmental boundaries,
and facilitating communication and coordination across departments, schools, and cross-school
initiatives. Such steps can help create the spaces for a critical mass of intellectual exchange
necessary to support scholarly innovation.

This study represents a first step in exploring factors that influence the development of a
rich diversity of cross-disciplinary initiatives. By bringing to light useful information about some
pockets of innovation, this work suggests how similar programs might evolve. To learn more
about the characteristics and support of such programs, future research should systematically
investigate cross-department and cross-school programs, both at the level of individual
universities and across the full range of higher education institutions.

O

ERIC

31

29

References

Baldridge, J. V., D.V. Curtis, G. P. Ecker, and G. L. Riley,. 1991. “Alternative models of

governance in higher education.” In Peterson, M.W., Chaffee, E. E., and White, T.H.
(eds.), Organization and governance in higher education: An ASHE reader , pp. 30-
45. Needham Heights, MA: Ginn Press.

Bellah, R.N. 1996. Creating transforming communities. Unpublished paper presented

at the Annual Conference of the Association of Presbyterian Colleges and Universities,
U.S.A., Asheville, N.C., March 14-17.

Benowitz, S. 1995. Wave of the future: Interdisciplinary collaborations. The Scientist, 9, 13,
January, 1995, 1-5.

Bohen, S. J. and J. Stiles. 1998. “Experimenting with models of faculty collaboration: Factors
that promote their success. ” In Frost, S.H. (ed.), Using teams in higher education:
Cultural foundations for productive change , p.p. 39-56. New Directions for Institutional
Research, 100 (4).

Boyer, E. 1990. Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton
University Press.

Brown, S. and K. Eisenhardt. 1998. Competing on the Edge: Strategy as Structured Chaos.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Damrosch, D. 1995. We scholars: Changing the culture of the university. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.

Frost, S.H. and T.W. Gillespie 1998. Organizations, culture, and teams: Links toward genuine
change. In Frost, S.H. (ed.), Using teams in higher education: Cultural foundations for
productive change, p.p. 5-15. New Directions for Institutional Research, 100 (4).

Geiger, R. L. 1990. “Organized research units— their roles in the development of university
research.” Journal of Higher Education 61:1, 1990, 1-19.

Geiger, R.L. 1993. Research and relevant knowledge: American research universities since
World War II. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hollingsworth, J. R. 1996. Strategies for excellence in American universities:

Implications for the University of Washington. Paper presented before the University of
Washington Board of Regents, September 20, 1996.

Hirschhom, L. and L. May. 2000. The campaign approach to change: Targeting the
university’s scarcest resources. Change, May/June, 30-37.

Merriam, S.B. 1998. Qualitative research and case study application in education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Publishers.

Newell, W. and J. T. Klein. 1996. Interdisciplinary studies into the 21st century” The
Journal of Education, 45 :1, 1996, 152-169.

Patton, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods (second edition). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.

Rice, R.E. 1996. Making a place for the new American scholar. AAHE Forum on
Faculty Roles and Rewards Working Paper. Washington, D.C.

O

ERIC

32

30

Ruscio, K. 1987. Many sectors, many professions. B. Clark (Ed.), The academic

profession: National, disciplinary and institutional settings, 271-303. Berkeley:
University of California Press.

Slaughter, S. and L. L. Leslie. 1997. Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the
entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press,

Spom, B. 1999. Adaptive university structures: An analysis of adaptation to socioeconomic
environments of US and European universities. London & Philadelphia: Jessica
Kingsley Publishers.

Veysey, L. 1965. The Emergence of the American University. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.

Weick, K. E. 1991. “Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems.” In Peterson, M.W.,
Chaffee, E. E., and White, T.H. (eds.), Organization and governance in higher
education: An ASHE reader, pp. 103-117. Needham Heights, MA: Ginn Press.

Yin, R. 1994. Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

O

ERIC

33

31

Appendix A: Descriptions of Cross-School Programs Studied

• African American Studies. Both the Institute for African Studies and the African American
Studies Program grew from the earlier Black Studies Program, which began in 1971. Though
African American Studies still works closely with the Institute for African Studies, the
program split off from that area-studies program in 1992 to focus on the experience of the
descendants of Africans in America. The program, currently directed by Mark Sanders, offers
a full undergraduate major and student internships with local agencies like the Martin Luther
King Center for Nonviolence, the Atlanta Black Arts Festival, and the AIDS Project at Grady
Hospital. In addition to their research and teaching, African American Studies faculty also
play a special role in counseling undergraduate organizations like the Black Student Alliance
and contributing to the on-going dialogue about racial issues on campus.
http://www.emory.edu/COLLEGE/AAS/aasindex.html

• Center for Behavioral Neuroscience. In 1999, a grant from the National Science Foundation
helped to establish this initiative that brings researchers from Emory together with colleagues
from Morehouse School of Medicine, the Georgia Institute of Technology, and Georgia State
University — just to name some of the participants in the Center’s “collaboratories.”
Undergraduate and graduate education is key to CBN’s mission, which allows students from
the constituent universities to study at other schools participating in the Center. Tom Insel,
Dennis Liotta, and Pat Martstellar at Emory join Elliot Albers at Georgia State in directing
the Center. The center’s research explores the neuroscience behind social behaviors and a
partnership with Emory’s biotechnology incubator is designed to aid in the transfer of some
useful technologies generated by that research, http://www.cbn-atl.org

• Center for Injury Control. Jointly sponsored by the School of Public Health and the School
of Medicine, the Center for Injury Control has existed since as a university-wide program
since 1993. Faculty from fields ranging from epidemiology to behavioral science collaborate
with agencies like the World Health Organization, CDC’s Center for Injury Prevention and
Control, the Georgia Department of Health and Human Services, and the Carter Center to
help reduce death and injuries from accidents. The Center also staffs courses on injury
control and collaborates with the Violence Studies program on topics of shared concern, like
gun violence. http://www.sph.emory.edu/CIC/

• Center of the Study of Health, Culture, and Society. Since 1993, Randall Packard, professor
of history and of international health, has designed this center to be a meeting ground for
social and health scientists, humanists, and health professionals. The Center helps to
reimagine the possibilities of graduate education through interdisciplinary fellowships that
allow doctoral students in the arts and sciences and in the school of public health to switch
places for one year to gain a grounding in a different field. A 1996 award from the Ford
Foundation initiated the Center’s partnership with African Studies to create courses,
workshops, and seminars on problems of public health importance in Africa. And grants
from the Mellon and Rockefeller Foundations in 1997 have funded a series of conferences
and workshops on defining the public health and emerging illnesses and public scholarship,

34

32

which drew participants from agencies like the CDC, the Carter Center, and the American
Cancer Society, as well as from various schools at Emory. http://www.emory.edu/CSHCS/

Department of Religion, Interfaculty Seminar. In the spring of 2000, the department of
religion organized a faculty seminar titled “Afterthoughts on Time and the Other.” Seventeen
participants attended an open lecture by visiting scholar Johannes Fabian and later joined
three seminar discussions led by professor Fabian. Half a dozen departments and
interdisciplinary programs were represented, from African Studies to Philosophy and
Economics. The participation also of a few advanced graduate students in the seminar
enhanced the liveliness of the exchange, according to several participating faculty. The
seminar was part of a larger initiative that seeks to make the interdisciplinary study of
religion part of an ongoing, university-wide discussion.

Disease Ecology. “Predicting the Emergence of Infectious Disease” was the theme of the
first annual lecture series sponsored by the new Center for Disease Ecology in the fall of
2000. Center Director Leslie Real defines disease ecology as the application of ecological
and evolutionary principles to understanding the emergence and spread of infectious diseases.
While Real foresees the eventual contribution of perspectives from the humanities and social
sciences to this emerging field of disease ecology, initial partners include Emory College, the
Health Science Center, the School of Public Health, the Graduate School of Arts and
Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control. In addition to sponsoring lectures and
conferences, the center plans to organize faculty working groups, in which international and
local scholars collaborate intensively for a brief period several times a year.

Halle Institute for Global Learning. In 1997, a major donation from Claus and Marianne
Halle funded this university-wide center, which fosters internationalization to benefit Emory,
collaboration among local universities, and the city of Atlanta. The Halle Institute sponsors a
guest speaker series, a travel abroad program for faculty, and a Distinguished Fellow
program. Faculty research seminars bring together scholars from political science,
economics, history, anthropology, sociology, business, law, medicine, and public health who
present and gain new perspectives on their work. http://www.emory.edu/OIA/Halle/

The Law and Religion Program. Begun in 1982, Law and Religion explores the religious
dimensions of the law, the legal dimensions of religions, and the interaction of ideas and
methods. Emphasizing ecumenical and comparative approaches, the program offers four
joint graduate degrees and ten cross-listed courses. The Lilly Endowment, The Ford
Foundation, and The Pew Charitable Trusts, among other agencies, have funded conferences
and research initiatives on topics like “Religious Human Rights in the World Today,”
“Christianity and Democracy,” and “Law, Religion, and Family.” In the fall of 2000, the
program will begin collaborating with a variety of other departments and schools on campus
as part of a new Center for the Interdisciplinary Study of Religion, funded by a major grant
from The Pew Charitable Trusts. This new center, also directed by John Witte, will be one of
five or six such centers established at top universities to foster interdisciplinary religious
scholarship by faculty and students.

http://servl.law.emory.edu/religion/about/about_start.htm

• Psychoanalytic Studies. Since 1996, the Psychoanalytic Studies program has brought
together faculty from the Institute of Liberal Arts (ILA), the Psychoanalytic Institute in the
Medical School, the Law School, and many other disciplines to discuss the history, theory,
and application of psychoanalytic thought. The program, housed in the ILA, offers a minor
concentration in psychoanalytic studies for graduate students and recently hosted an
international conference on “Women and Power,” with the Institute for Psychoanalytic
Studies here at Emory and the International Psychoanalytic Association.
http://www.emory.edu/COLLEGE/ILA/ILA_divisions/Psychoanalytic_Studies.html

• Russian and East European Studies. This program, administered through the Department of
Russian and East Asian Languages and Cultures, sponsors curricular and extra-curricular
programming, as well as a certificate for graduate students in law, business, and public
health. REES evolved out of the Soviet and East European Studies Program, which was
begun in 1983 through federal grants. Currently, affiliated faculty in Political Science,
History, Law, and the Russian Language Program work to enhance undergraduate courses
and sponsor lectures, films, symposia, and workshops for local teachers.
http://www.emory.edu/SEES/index.htm

• Science and Religion Faculty Group. In 1999, the Religion Department’s Gary Laderman
teamed up with physicist P.V. Rao to lead a weekly reading group to help them think through
a course they planned to co-teach. Support from the Science and Society Program
underwrote the cost of lunch and a web presence for the group of professors from the medical
school and various humanistic disciplines. The discussion extended to graduate students in
the spring of 2000 through the interdisciplinary Burke Nicholson Symposium on Suffering
and Healing, supported by the graduate school. The group continues to meet in 2000-2001
but has evolved into a more focused forum that meets less frequently.

• Violence Studies. Having been in existence since only 1996, Violence Studies has already
received attention in the Chronicle of Higher Education, ABC News, and the Washington
Post, as well as local papers, for its interdisciplinary approach to understanding the causes
and representations of violence, as well as its prevention. The program, now directed by
Beverly Schaffer, facilitates a sharing of research perspectives among its seventy faculty
members from across the university, offers an undergraduate minor, co-sponsors conferences,
and organizes student internships with community organizations like the Dekalb County
Juvenile Court and the Georgia Council on Child Abuse.
http://www.emory.edu/COLLEGE/VS/index.htm

O

ERIC

36

34

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)
National Library of Education (NLE)

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

REPRODUCTION RELEASE

(Specific Document)

1^00

I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION:

ol*>~ V> t>A ^ i Cv^JL C-L

Dt \ s }

Author(s): Sirsc, rt /-V.Frdsv . Pc,,A M . "Sea*. . £>Q/\;<zl v Ar*-i &><

r j . 7 ,

Corporate Source:

Publication Date:

fJO^/A'o'Lr 3 ^- C3C> I

II. REPRODUCTION RELEASE:

In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announced in the
monthly- abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (R1E), are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproduced paper copy,
and electronic media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). Credit is Qiven to the source of each document, and, if
reproduction release is granted, one of the following notices Is affixed to the document.

If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following three options and sign at the bottom
of the page.

The sample sticker shown below will be
cfflxod to ail Love* 1 documenis

Tho sample sticker shown below will be
affixed to ail Laval 2A documents

Tho sampfc sticker shown below will be
affixed to all Lovol 2B documents

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
BEEN GRANTED BY

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN
MICROFICHE, AND IN ELECTRONIC MEDIA
FOR ERIC COLLECTION SUBSCRIBERS ONLY,
HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN
MICROFICHE ONLY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

*

J?

cp

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

1

2A

2B

Level 1

Level 2A

Level 2B

Check here for lovct 1 reloaso. permitting reproduction
and dissemination tn microfiche or other ERIC archival
medio <e.Q„ electronic) and paper copy.

Chock hero for level 2A release, permitting reproduction
and dissemination cn microfiche and In electronic metBa
for ERJC archival collection subscribers on5y

Check here for Level 28 release, permitting
reproduction and dissemination m microfiche onJy

Documents wC be processed e» indicated provided reproduction quality permits,
tf permission to reproduce Is granted, Out no box Is checked, documents will bo processed at Level 1 -

Sign

here,-*

please

O

/ hereby grant to the Educational Resources information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminate this document
as indicated above. Reproduction from the ERtC microftche or electronic media by persons other than ERIC employees and its system
contractors requires permission from the copyright holder. Exception is made for non-profit reproduction by tibranes and other service agendas
to satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete Inquiries.

&Lusr-

Printed NomefftosWon/Ttile:

Sis# a/ -fzoj r Vt ce Tfr idylajt

Qrganlxation/Addresa:

Crro/z-Y UAsn/EES/rr JXtELoprtaJr

/OS &DI7/ A' '3l-£>£. V7Z^/u5*9 . toft S 03 J 2 JX-

Telephone: _ __

Hoy o78sr

FAX’

-cfp?9

E-Moil Address:

shnS+P es*0 * efc/cy

(over)

III. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY INFORMATION {FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE):

If permission to reproduce is not granted to ERIC, or, if you wish ERIC to cite the availability of the document from another source, please
provide the following information regarding the availability of the document. (ERIC will not announce a document unless it is publicly
available, and a dependable source can be specified. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selection criteria are significantly more
stringent for documents that cannot be made available through EDRS.)

Publisher/Distributor:

Address:

Price:

IV. REFERRAL OF ERIC TO COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION RIGHTS HOLDER:

if the right to grant this reproduction release is held by someone other than the addressee, please provide the appropriate name and
address:

V. WHERE TO SEND THIS FORM:

Toll Free: 800-799-3742
FAX: 301-953-0263
e-mail: ericfac@ineted.gov
WWW: http://ericfac.piccard.csc.com

i mV 186 ( Rev - 9/9?)

I l\H IQUS VERSIONS OF THIS FORM ARE OBSOLETE.